Well so far, the only person who has mentioned being a troll, having an agenda or disrupting, is you.

And guess what, there are plenty of other people here who have worked with digital imaging, for a considerable number of years, and they are entitled to their opinion as well. That's how this forum works.

Are you one of those people Iris? I'd love to hear your theories and practical explanations about how the manipulation of the photo was done. It's an incredible - arguably the world's best - photoshop job if that's what it is.

Nice try, but I don't have to justify myself to you. And the only reason that we now all know of your "expertise" is that you have gone to great lengths to tell us.

matthew wrote:On jh forum the photo side by side looks convincing to me that the girl was different in the picture frame with cross on it to poolside,she had a bob hairstyle...

The video looks like it was filmed on a potato. That image you refer to is, I believe, the famous "altar" picture which is just a crop of the "last photo" with some very dodgy clone brush work to get rid of Gerry's elbow. How you think you can see enough detail to come to that conclusion is beyond me. If that isn't the renowned "altar photo" then I stand to be corrected.

Nice try, but I don't have to justify myself to you. And the only reason that we now all know of your "expertise" is that you have gone to great lengths to tell us.

Thanks for that contribution Iris. So basically you're saying that you have no evidence to back up your claims other than that you don't trust me because my digital eyes are too close together or something? Sounds plausible enough. It would be pointless, therefore, to debate further with you and I shall refrain from so doing.

Nice try, but I don't have to justify myself to you. And the only reason that we now all know of your "expertise" is that you have gone to great lengths to tell us.

Thanks for that contribution Iris. So basically you're saying that you have no evidence to back up your claims other than that you don't trust me because my digital eyes are too close together or something? Sounds plausible enough. It would be pointless, therefore, to debate further with you and I shall refrain from so doing.

That's your interpretation, to which you are entitled, but kindly do not go putting words in my mouth. There have been enough fairy stories attached to this case already. This will be my last post to you as the thread is now in danger of becoming derailed, and some of us wish to continue debating.

tanszi wrote:i agree. someone, and its probably in an archived post somehwere on this forum, who is an expert on photoshopping gives a whole list of reasons to do with data etc, which shows the photo was photoshopped, and no its wasnt the ne from Pamalam. I wont trust you on what you are saying despite your exhortations C Edwarsds. Many with similar expertise say otherwise.

Well I'd love to see that post Tanszi. Until then it looks like you simply want to believe it's photoshopped and that's fine - you're entirely entitle to that opinion. And how do you know what my level of expertise is so that you can compare it with others?

C.Edwards, when you were on the Jill Havern forum you will have seen the analysis of the weather preceding 3rd May 2007. The historical meteorological information, showing the temperatures during and preceding the week that the McCanns were present, plus information from local gardeners and hotel owners, show cold weather.Bougainvillea can only come into full flowering bracts when it has had several (around 5) days, with continuously some 5 hours a day of hot sunshine.The bougainvillea behind Maddie in the playground picture, just 4 days before the pool photo, is hardly past first shoot stage and certainly nowhere near to flowering.Since all witness statements, including second-hand statements from Kate's mum, talk of colder than expected weather, rain, such that tennis was canceled, children coming off the beach cold and miserable, then there is no question that the bougainvillea would have been in flower, such that is seen in the purported 3rd May 2007 last photo on the background at the pool.So, apart from numerous observations from people with and without photo-shopping skills, including people who can see inconsistencies in shadow angle and intensity, how do you explain the full flowering background.The devil is in the detail. The photo-shopper, concentrating so hard on developing an image that they would hope would seem credible did not look from a gardener, or botanist's point of view and check that the bigger picture did not blow the gaff.You insist that you are correct and we should believe you. As others have said, there are many expert photo-shoppers who have analysed the photos, and even people without such skills, such as myself, albeit a gardener and botanist who can see errors which defy the verity of the claim that the photo was take on 3rd May 2007.

To base a theory about a photoshopped picture on a tenuous connection to the "usual" flowering habits of the local flora is quite bizarre to me. Can you imagine in a court... "call your expert witness! So mr. photoshop expert, are there any signs of digital manipulation in this image?" "No your honour, but it has to be fake as the lesser-spotted twerp-weevil is clearly visible in the background on that blade of grass and they don't usually appear in Portugal until the 19th of August, so it must be fake."

I'm no botanist, but I am aware that other things contribute to flowering of plants, such as rainfall. What if it has been wetter or drier than usual? What if it had been exceptionally hot a few weeks before and although it was cold then, that early heat had brought the flowers into bloom ahead of schedule or vice-versa?

Arguing that an image cannot have been taken when it was supposed to be because of a minor discrepancy in the flowering habits of a plant that doesn't wear a watch to the best of my knowledge is not, you will probably admit, prima facie evidence...?

Please feel free to point me at ANY of these supposed "many" expert photoshop analyses of this picture and I'll see if I can explain to you why they're wrong. How do you KNOW for a fact that I'm not the most qualified expert that's available to analyse that picture (I'm not, but you don't *know* that and I may well be the second or third best... ;-) )

Being logicalish i would say the picture is hard to see on the video of bedside table...im sure the investigation would of spotted such a different maddie but i see a maddie with a bob hairstyle,chubbyish face

tanszi wrote:i agree. someone, and its probably in an archived post somehwere on this forum, who is an expert on photoshopping gives a whole list of reasons to do with data etc, which shows the photo was photoshopped, and no its wasnt the ne from Pamalam. I wont trust you on what you are saying despite your exhortations C Edwarsds. Many with similar expertise say otherwise.

Well I'd love to see that post Tanszi. Until then it looks like you simply want to believe it's photoshopped and that's fine - you're entirely entitle to that opinion. And how do you know what my level of expertise is so that you can compare it with others?

C.Edwards, when you were on the Jill Havern forum you will have seen the analysis of the weather preceding 3rd May 2007. The historical meteorological information, showing the temperatures during and preceding the week that the McCanns were present, plus information from local gardeners and hotel owners, show cold weather.Bougainvillea can only come into full flowering bracts when it has had several (around 5) days, with continuously some 5 hours a day of hot sunshine.The bougainvillea behind Maddie in the playground picture, just 4 days before the pool photo, is hardly past first shoot stage and certainly nowhere near to flowering.Since all witness statements, including second-hand statements from Kate's mum, talk of colder than expected weather, rain, such that tennis was canceled, children coming off the beach cold and miserable, then there is no question that the bougainvillea would have been in flower, such that is seen in the purported 3rd May 2007 last photo on the background at the pool.So, apart from numerous observations from people with and without photo-shopping skills, including people who can see inconsistencies in shadow angle and intensity, how do you explain the full flowering background.The devil is in the detail. The photo-shopper, concentrating so hard on developing an image that they would hope would seem credible did not look from a gardener, or botanist's point of view and check that the bigger picture did not blow the gaff.You insist that you are correct and we should believe you. As others have said, there are many expert photo-shoppers who have analysed the photos, and even people without such skills, such as myself, albeit a gardener and botanist who can see errors which defy the verity of the claim that the photo was take on 3rd May 2007.

To base a theory about a photoshopped picture on a tenuous connection to the "usual" flowering habits of the local flora is quite bizarre to me. Can you imagine in a court... "call your expert witness! So mr. photoshop expert, are there any signs of digital manipulation in this image?" "No your honour, but it has to be fake as the lesser-spotted twerp-weevil is clearly visible in the background on that blade of grass and they don't usually appear in Portugal until the 19th of August, so it must be fake."

I'm no botanist, but I am aware that other things contribute to flowering of plants, such as rainfall. What if it has been wetter or drier than usual? What if it had been exceptionally hot a few weeks before and although it was cold then, that early heat had brought the flowers into bloom ahead of schedule or vice-versa?

Arguing that an image cannot have been taken when it was supposed to be because of a minor discrepancy in the flowering habits of a plant that doesn't wear a watch to the best of my knowledge is not, you will probably admit, prima facie evidence...?

Please feel free to point me at ANY of these supposed "many" expert photoshop analyses of this picture and I'll see if I can explain to you why they're wrong. How do you KNOW for a fact that I'm not the most qualified expert that's available to analyse that picture (I'm not, but you don't *know* that and I may well be the second or third best... ;-) )

The comparison between the photo of Madeleine with Gerry and Amelie and Madeleine sans Gerry's elbow is much more important than the flowering of plants. I can appreciate taking Gerry's elbow out of the image, but not changing Madeleine's hairstyle. Why would someone want to do that?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

matthew wrote:It looks...seems etc i did not say conclusive,i go on what the eyes tell me & they are in pretty good nick thanks...why would they need to alter the photo for the bedside cabinet

Because it's a large photo (the last photo) and it is a picture from which a cropped image can be taken and printed at a reasonable size without too much pixellation being introduced. In cropping it, Gerry's elbow is in place, therefore the clone brush tool is used to "stamp" the background over his elbow. They then clumsily blurred the background around her (you can see the artefacts in a better version of the picture) to artificially create a shallow depth of field and therefore highlight Madeleine more.

The comparison between the photo of Madeleine with Gerry and Amelie and Madeleine sans Gerry's elbow is much more important than the flowering of plants. I can appreciate taking Gerry's elbow out of the image, but not changing Madeleine's hairstyle. Why would someone want to do that?

Do you have a link to a picture showing that? Other than the world's worst resolution still from a video shown above, of course!

matthew wrote:It looks...seems etc i did not say conclusive,i go on what the eyes tell me & they are in pretty good nick thanks...why would they need to alter the photo for the bedside cabinet

Because it's a large photo (the last photo) and it is a picture from which a cropped image can be taken and printed at a reasonable size without too much pixellation being introduced. In cropping it, Gerry's elbow is in place, therefore the clone brush tool is used to "stamp" the background over his elbow. They then clumsily blurred the background around her (you can see the artefacts in a better version of the picture) to artificially create a shallow depth of field and therefore highlight Madeleine more.

Wow! Can you really do all that with Photoshop? That's amazing, the things they can do nowadays.

The comparison between the photo of Madeleine with Gerry and Amelie and Madeleine sans Gerry's elbow is much more important than the flowering of plants. I can appreciate taking Gerry's elbow out of the image, but not changing Madeleine's hairstyle. Why would someone want to do that?

Do you have a link to a picture showing that? Other than the world's worst resolution still from a video shown above, of course!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

matthew wrote:It looks...seems etc i did not say conclusive,i go on what the eyes tell me & they are in pretty good nick thanks...why would they need to alter the photo for the bedside cabinet

Because it's a large photo (the last photo) and it is a picture from which a cropped image can be taken and printed at a reasonable size without too much pixellation being introduced. In cropping it, Gerry's elbow is in place, therefore the clone brush tool is used to "stamp" the background over his elbow. They then clumsily blurred the background around her (you can see the artefacts in a better version of the picture) to artificially create a shallow depth of field and therefore highlight Madeleine more.

Wow! Can you really do all that with Photoshop? That's amazing, the things they can do nowadays.

The comparison between the photo of Madeleine with Gerry and Amelie and Madeleine sans Gerry's elbow is much more important than the flowering of plants. I can appreciate taking Gerry's elbow out of the image, but not changing Madeleine's hairstyle. Why would someone want to do that?

Do you have a link to a picture showing that? Other than the world's worst resolution still from a video shown above, of course!

The comparison between the photo of Madeleine with Gerry and Amelie and Madeleine sans Gerry's elbow is much more important than the flowering of plants. I can appreciate taking Gerry's elbow out of the image, but not changing Madeleine's hairstyle. Why would someone want to do that?

Do you have a link to a picture showing that? Other than the world's worst resolution still from a video shown above, of course!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

What I don't understand is why they used an altered image to frame whilst in PDL. Madeleine was missing just a short time and their last photo of her included her father and sibling. What do they do ? Chop out the family! Surely they would place the full photo in a frame next to their bed ? I can understand when using it for ther marketing campaign but personal use and so soon after the disappearance seems rather odd.

mossman wrote:What I don't understand is why they used an altered image to frame whilst in PDL. Madeleine was missing just a short time and their last photo of her included her father and sibling. What do they do ? Chop out the family! Surely they would place the full photo in a frame next to their bed ? I can understand when using it for ther marketing campaign but personal use and so soon after the disappearance seems rather odd.

They would have known at that time that their documentary would include film of the "shrine" on the mantelpiece. The framed photograph is a prop to dress the set, nothing more. They don't do anything without a good reason.

The comparison between the photo of Madeleine with Gerry and Amelie and Madeleine sans Gerry's elbow is much more important than the flowering of plants. I can appreciate taking Gerry's elbow out of the image, but not changing Madeleine's hairstyle. Why would someone want to do that?

Do you have a link to a picture showing that? Other than the world's worst resolution still from a video shown above, of course!

The comparison between the photo of Madeleine with Gerry and Amelie and Madeleine sans Gerry's elbow is much more important than the flowering of plants. I can appreciate taking Gerry's elbow out of the image, but not changing Madeleine's hairstyle. Why would someone want to do that?

Do you have a link to a picture showing that? Other than the world's worst resolution still from a video shown above, of course!

It IS a fact! I've overlaid it on two separate layers on screen, it is ABSOLUTELY identical!

I missed that! Will look back.

ETA Can't find where you posted that.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)